tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post1280600416570184355..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Descartes: Yes, or No? bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80792311793427665282021-07-27T07:06:05.933-07:002021-07-27T07:06:05.933-07:00Protestantism, for the most part, are not sacramen...Protestantism, for the most part, are not sacramental, may lack "Incarnational" but more fully accepts the Holy Spirit's reality, indwelling in the true believer for his sanctification.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27334281779993771952021-07-27T06:58:26.894-07:002021-07-27T06:58:26.894-07:00corre tin:
By now, Spanish is my second language....corre tin:<br /><br />By now, Spanish is my second language.<br /><br />I do not know about "harshest." In my experience the reason was always as verification of later texts.JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-53786965631928080682021-07-27T04:43:54.576-07:002021-07-27T04:43:54.576-07:00Oldest, yes. I have also read that the harshest m...Oldest, yes. I have also read that the harshest manuscripts are to be valued. Too often, in an attempt to make the message more agreeable, the language was toned down by the translators.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63407045800221215132021-07-26T18:05:49.454-07:002021-07-26T18:05:49.454-07:00Inerrancy as to the originals. That is why Protest...Inerrancy as to the originals. That is why Protestants are always searching for oldest manuscripts and comparing with later ones.<br />English is my second language. By Spanish is my second language. Translations has always been a thing for me. With the Bible, since I became a Christian at 25yo, a have sat in many a Sunday school, even during sermons, where a large percentage of the adults had interlinear Bibles or Bibles with 4 translations.<br />JaimeInTexashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729407700850451849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27920274899255934842021-07-23T08:01:18.541-07:002021-07-23T08:01:18.541-07:00Roger, I agree with you. When I use dogmatic, I t...Roger, I agree with you. When I use dogmatic, I think of it from the basis of what dogma is.<br /><br />dog•ma dôg′mə, dŏg′-►<br />n. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion.<br /><br />I meant if I am dogmatic, I had to dogma. But your comments are very correct. There has to be circumspection when alternative views are introduced.RMBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603112499567064214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-80599225119093288782021-07-22T16:58:32.951-07:002021-07-22T16:58:32.951-07:00"If you aren't dogmatic in today's wo..."If you aren't dogmatic in today's world you will compromise with the world."--RMB<br /><br />From Merriam-Webster:<br /><br />"Definition of dogmatism<br />1: the expression of an opinion or belief as if it were a fact : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant"<br /><br />As if it were a fact. From a position of arrogance.<br /><br />I suggest substituting the word "principled" in place of "dogmatic". <br /><br />Dogmatism is stiff-necked, stubborn, and bull-headed, even when you know you are wrong. Principle is sticking to your guns when you know you are right, regardless of the opposition against you. Athanasius contra mundum! Was he dogmatic or principled? In the end, his view overpowered all others. <br /><br />We should know what we believe and be willing to hold fast to it, BUT...when we are confronted with the possibility that we are wrong, we cannot stubbornly refuse to admit error, which appears to be what you are saying. On that, I am with you.<br /><br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24007938435352230462021-07-22T13:09:27.114-07:002021-07-22T13:09:27.114-07:00I still agree with those 5 things. I don't th...I still agree with those 5 things. I don't think it matters what Scripture is inerrant about. The important thing is to view the Scripture as authoritative.<br /><br />I would argue that belief in biblical inerrancy protects a person from simple Cartesian views of Scripture. It is the nonbeliever who looks at the Bible and sees only propositions, of which they think are mainly incorrect.<br /><br />Believing the Bible is inerrant places the believer under the God of Scripture and puts us in right relationship to it so that we can be conformed to it or Him. Without believing in inerrancy (in general), the individual is the judge of Scripture and therefore there is no reason to conform to it (Him). It must then conform to you. That is the view of the nonbeliever ultimately.RMBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603112499567064214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-20852188786181328322021-07-22T13:04:25.108-07:002021-07-22T13:04:25.108-07:00I will continue to try to be dogmatic and humble. ...I will continue to try to be dogmatic and humble. If you aren't dogmatic in today's world you will compromise with the world. We live in a crooked and perverse generation (as all Christians have ever done). We have to be humble before the world and be open to admitting fault and allowing for difference. But if you leave the door open to the fundamental of the faith, you will be corrupted by the world.<br /><br />I know because I am pretty corrupted already. I need to sanctification.RMBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13603112499567064214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-77631209273401416222021-07-21T22:45:46.966-07:002021-07-21T22:45:46.966-07:00Kurt Gödel put to death David Hilbert's dream ...Kurt Gödel put to death David Hilbert's dream of systematizing all of mathematics -- that is -- propositional logic, with his two incompleteness theorems.<br /><br />Protestants didn't get the memo, and/or didn't understand it.<br /><br />The very big difference between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy is that Protestantism is a religion of (only) symbols and propositions. Catholicism/Orthodoxy has all of that intellectual content, but also has the Sacraments.<br /><br />The Sacraments are all *Incarnational*. They are God's grace taking on physical substance. Sacraments impart God's grace to us using physical stuff.<br /><br />Protestantism lacks that, being a religion of propositions and ideas to which you must assent. Protestantism lacks incarnationality.<br /><br />Catholicism/Orthodoxy has all of those propositions and ideas to which you must assent, but they also have the incarnational sacraments.<br /><br />We humans are not merely brains, not merely minds. We also have bodies. We are made of physical stuff. We need a religion that caters to our entire being: physical bodies as well as our minds.<br /><br />In addition, going back to Gödel, propositional logic is a dead end due to the well established incompleteness theorems. Propositional logic is not enough. It will never be enough.<br /><br />Man does not live by mere propositional logic alone, nor the word (small letter w) of God (the Bible) alone, but by the Word of God (large letter W -- Jesus Himself), who gives Himself to us to eat as food.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-8284140414355601162021-07-21T12:08:12.552-07:002021-07-21T12:08:12.552-07:00Fair point, it was over three years ago. Peterson...Fair point, it was over three years ago. Peterson was definitely lying though. He plagiarized his definition of meek from Wordsworth ("Though meek and patient as a sheathed sword"), and certainly not from any Greek - or Hebrew! - source.<br />Fozzy Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05386199186411001911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22136357806276109082021-07-21T10:43:57.436-07:002021-07-21T10:43:57.436-07:00"...but because nobody could agree on what sc..."...but because nobody could agree on what scripture was inerrant about. ...THIS has been the biggest failure of pure propositionalism - endless division, confusion, strife, & grifting."<br /><br />YES. I am with you, and this is unfortunate.<br /><br />Inerrency passes through translations, interpretations, cultural context at the time of events as compared to the context-lens we look through today, and - in reference to each passage - should I read it as art or science/history.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-65543979687298874832021-07-21T09:16:14.349-07:002021-07-21T09:16:14.349-07:00I don't believe PVK ever said he lied about th...I don't believe PVK ever said he lied about this, just that he is wrong. <br /><br />As to the rest, both PVK and JBP have their faults (in my eyes, but my eyes might be wrong); I have written about these in the past. What is clear is that each of them have opened the door to many people who are now examining Christianity where in the past they dismissed it. In other words, his lectures were also a vehicle for opening the Bible to a new audience.<br /><br />Luke 9: 49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.<br /><br />50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-33901746131520833262021-07-21T09:11:41.993-07:002021-07-21T09:11:41.993-07:00"If we would adopt the idea that we do not kn..."If we would adopt the idea that we do not know it all and that there are things to learn, it would make it easier to lose the dogmatism that dogs so much of what is known as Christian teaching."<br /><br />If i consider myself, say 5-10 years ago vs. today, I want to believe this has been my path (transition from dogmatic to humble) - and I hope I demonstrate it.<br /><br />Some may consider this demonstrates a lukewarm Christianity. I don't think so. Peter preached the first sermon, and the topic was the Resurrection. 3000 were added to their number.<br /><br />I don't say that the rest is detail, but this example cannot be ignored.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67657717812350570002021-07-21T09:09:17.824-07:002021-07-21T09:09:17.824-07:00Fundamentalism was born at the 1897 Summer Niagra ...Fundamentalism was born at the 1897 Summer Niagra Conference, which sought to reinforce the Faith across denominational lines. They decided on the "Five Fundamentals of the Faith", which were:<br />1) The Virgin Birth<br />2) The Divinity of Christ<br />3) Christ's atonning death & resurrection<br />4) Christ's physical coming again in power<br />5) The inerrancy of scripture<br />The idea was to come up with a solid platform that all small-o orthodox Christians could lean on to resist the modernists.<br />The first four are in most creeds & confessions.<br />The fifth, inerrancy is not. <br />Fundamentalism divided on this, not just because these were 100% propositional, but because nobody could agree on what scripture was inerrant about. <br />If you look at the history of Protestantism in America, you see the endless emergence of splits & cults, most of which ground themselves in differences of interpretation. "We just want to do things the Bible way." THIS has been the biggest failure of pure propositionalism - endless division, confusion, strife, & grifting.<br />The first schism took 1000 years, the second, 500. Now they come about once a year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-53853524745651631342021-07-21T07:42:42.327-07:002021-07-21T07:42:42.327-07:00Ironically it was PvK who started me on the road t...Ironically it was PvK who started me on the road to understanding that JBP is a gnostic charlatan with a Messiah complex. It started when PvK pointed out that JBP lied about the definition of “meek” in the Olivet discourse, then immediately glossed over it. That’s when I finally read Maps which showed me JBP’s madness, and his footnotes which led to the diagnosis. I lost all respect for PvK after that incident.<br /><br />Go back and watch JBP’s “Bible” series. He openly admits he read the passages for the first time in the days before each lecture, and that the lectures were in fact a vehicle for teaching his Jungian psych course to a new audience.Fozzy Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05386199186411001911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22853039891679215542021-07-21T05:12:12.450-07:002021-07-21T05:12:12.450-07:00"He notes: we grow up in a tradition and unde..."He notes: we grow up in a tradition and understand the Bible within the context of that tradition: based on this context, we each feel confident in proclaiming that “this is what the passage means.” But it isn’t the only tradition. How to evaluate competing histories of interpretation?"<br /><br />This is hitting the nail on the head and explains the wide variety of "opinion" among Christians, including those of us who comment here. <br /><br />If we would adopt the idea that we do not know it all and that there are things to learn, it would make it easier to lose the dogmatism that dogs so much of what is known as Christian teaching. All of us have things we can learn. I am not so sure that all of us have things we can teach. Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.com